linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Fix root_count when mount fails due to busy subsystem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6599ad830901231032h76a301ceica371145eca30388@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:32:09 -0800
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, serue@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Fix root_count when mount fails due to busy 
	subsystem

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> cgroup: Fix root_count when mount fails due to busy subsystem
>>
>> root_count was being incremented in cgroup_get_sb() after all error
>> checking was complete, but decremented in cgroup_kill_sb(), which can be
>> called on a superblock that we gave up on due to an error.  This patch
>> changes cgroup_kill_sb() to only decrement root_count if the root was
>> previously linked into the list of roots.
>
> i'm wondering, what happens in the buggy case: does cgroup_kill_sb() get
> called twice (if yes, why?),

No.

> or do we call cgroup_kill_sb() on a not yet
> added sb and hence root_count has not been elevated yet?

Right.

> (if yes, which
> codepath does this?)

It's via the call to deactivate_super().

The code could be restructured such that:

- we don't set sb->s_fs_info until we've linked the new root into the root_list
- do any necessary cleanup for a failed root in cgroup_get_sb()
- have cgroup_kill_sb() handle either no root or a fully-initialized root

But then you're replacing "only decrement root_count if root was
linked in to list" with "only do root cleanup if root was atached to
sb" in cgroup_kill_sb(). I don't see that one is much cleaner than the
other.

For 2.6.29, we should fix this by reverting the broken part of the
patch that made it into 2.6.29-rcX

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/